ForumGarden

Derby House Fire: Police Arrest Mick Philpott And Wife Mairead Over Fire That Killed Six Children

Please don't say they did this ???

Why ?

Why would they ?

Why assume there is a rational reason?

gmc;1394633 wrote: Why assume there is a rational reason?


Because earlier reports stated that police could prove an accelerant had been poured through the letterbox from the outside..... which Indicates Intent.

oscar;1394619 wrote: Please don't say they did this ???

Why ?

Why would they ?


It sounds like the police shaking the local community to see what falls from the branches, rather than have the case go off the boil and out of the headlines. Knowing whether one or both of two specific people handled raw petrol the previous day would be, I'd hope, as trivial a forensic question as whether they'd fired a pistol or taken alcohol.

oscar;1394634 wrote: Because earlier reports stated that police could prove an accelerant had been poured through the letterbox from the outside..... which Indicates Intent.


It would appear quite certain that this was done with intent. That doesn't mean there had to be a rational reason for them to do it.

My word. Take me for a tosspot for I know nothing.

BBC News - Derby fire deaths: Mick and Mairead Philpott charged

spot;1394793 wrote: My word. Take me for a tosspot for I know nothing.

BBC News - Derby fire deaths: Mick and Mairead Philpott charged
There has to be an element of ' something' to present to the CPS to warrant charges.

Nothing surprises me any more In cases like this. I can remember wondering why police had arrested Karen Matthews but I am at a loss as to why on earth the Phillpott's would do this.

I'd not know, oscar. I've never met them.

spot;1394809 wrote: I'd not know, oscar. I've never met them. But you seemed certain It was just the police shaking branches to see what fell ?

oscar;1394810 wrote: But you seemed certain It was just the police shaking branches to see what fell ?


Certain? I thought I'd written "It sounds like". My thought was based on the idea that anyone handling petrol would find it impossible not to test positive the next day, and that the two of them were surely bound to have been tested the next day, and that since they'd not been charged the next day then they'd not been handling petrol. Hence my current bafflement and my admission that I know nothing when it comes to testing for petrol.

You'd have thought that, from the moment the emergency services hove into view, the two of them would have found it impossible to so much as wash at a tap much less shower from head to foot. How can either of them have been pouring petrol through a letterbox minutes before? Hence my look of astounded disbelief.

spot;1394812 wrote: Certain? I thought I'd written "It sounds like". My thought was based on the idea that anyone handling petrol would find it impossible not to test positive the next day, and that the two of them were surely bound to have been tested the next day, and that since they'd not been charged the next day then they'd not been handling petrol. Hence my current bafflement and my admission that I know nothing when it comes to testing for petrol.

You'd have thought that, from the moment the emergency services hove into view, the two of them would have found it impossible to so much as wash at a tap much less shower from head to foot. How can either of them have been pouring petrol through a letterbox minutes before? Hence my look of astounded disbelief.


You're just guessing that the evidence required to bring about charges was traces of petrol on the Phillpott's.... It could well not be that. It could be eye witness's, statements from the other children...anything.

The one known thing about the fire is that it was started beneath the letterbox by someone using petrol. Or have I got that wrong.

spot;1394815 wrote: The one known thing about the fire is that it was started beneath the letterbox by someone using petrol. Or have I got that wrong.


True but would any prosecution be successful based purely on traces of petrol being found on the Phillpott's?

oscar;1394818 wrote: True but would any prosecution be successful based purely on traces of petrol being found on the Phillpott's?


I'd have thought it would qualify as "bang to rights" if they had. I'm merely lost when it comes to waiting all this while before charging them, if they had. I'd take the delay to mean they hadn't, in which case I'm equally puzzled why they're charged. An element of my logic is awry.

My other leg is that nobody can put petrol through a letter box without contaminating themselves.

spot;1394826 wrote: I'd have thought it would qualify as "bang to rights" if they had. I'm merely lost when it comes to waiting all this while before charging them, if they had. I'd take the delay to mean they hadn't, in which case I'm equally puzzled why they're charged. An element of my logic is awry.

My other leg is that nobody can put petrol through a letter box without contaminating themselves.


This caused me to recall this trial last year :

Video: Mother cleared of killing her children in house fire - Telegraph

If I recall correctly, there was no forensic evidence that showed this woman had started the fire.

spot;1394635 wrote: It sounds like the police shaking the local community to see what falls from the branches, rather than have the case go off the boil and out of the headlines. Knowing whether one or both of two specific people handled raw petrol the previous day would be, I'd hope, as trivial a forensic question as whether they'd fired a pistol or taken alcohol.


Within a few hours, that should be easy, two weeks on, though, might be another question.

LarsMac;1394858 wrote: Within a few hours, that should be easy, two weeks on, though, might be another question. I'm pretty sure their clothes would have been removed at the scene just by a matter of course for forensics. They do that to eliminate as well as look for suspect evidence.